A few questions... (1 Viewer)

[Frigid]

i guess the best advice i've got for prospective law students is aim to be consistent throughout the semester with study. each subject requires a certain number of hours dedicated to it, and slacking off a week or two (or ten, mr frigid, for that matter ), will often result in huge pre-exam stress, a sense of futility and self-despair (o woe is me!).

this message has been kindly brought to you by a procrastinating me. i never seem to do anything on weekends.

 

[melsc]

same...I have one exam left...have high expectations of my self AND want to get into law and what am I doing???

 

[ManlyChief]

oh btw I just realised I said it cant hurt to take legal...the only way it can is when ur book tells you it is the defences job to "prove the case BARD"...I think they mean "raise doubt" LOL

Did your book really say that?!?!

 

[melsc]

yep maquarie revison guide - since when does def have any onus

Luckily for class we use hienmann

 

[ManlyChief]

'Tis a little misleading. The only side ever to have a BARD burden of proof is the prosecution. The only times the defence has anything is:

- a legal burden (on the civil standard of BOP) for defences of mental impariment and diminished responsibility (where allowed by statute) and
- an evidential burden to lead evidence supporting claimed defence(s).

You should write to the Macq people and let them know of this ...

 

[Frigid]

since when does def have any onus

showing off:

the defence has onus of proof on BOP to raise defence of insanity and SIAM... evidentiary onus to raise other defences...

 

[ManlyChief]

Great minds think alike

 

[Frigid]

Great minds think alike

and lesser minds, like me, just refer back to their Brown et al

 

[05er]

i guess the best advice i've got for prospective law students is aim to be consistent throughout the semester with study. each subject requires a certain number of hours dedicated to it, and slacking off a week or two (or ten, mr frigid, for that matter ), will often result in huge pre-exam stress, a sense of futility and self-despair (o woe is me!).

this message has been kindly brought to you by a procrastinating me. i never seem to do anything on weekends.

Yeah but before exams you get to a stage where you feel you know everything but realise when the exam starts that you actually know nothing.

I call that the Lord Arrogance complex.

 

[ManlyChief]

and lesser minds, like me, just refer back to their Brown et al

I hate that book ...

 

[melsc]

showing off:

the defence has onus of proof on BOP to raise defence of insanity and SIAM... evidentiary onus to raise other defences...

. I hope they do realise since I didn buy the book this year
I guess it would be the same as my experiences with Italian, what I learnt in primary skool I did in a week of year 8, what I did in a year of year 8 italian we covered in a month of year 11.

My other favorite mistake is "Hearsay evidence is evidence which is someone's opinion" - i remember reading that and thinking...hold on a sec. I'm sure that there is a whole different rule as to opinions and it is called "opinon evidence" I remember going through the exceptions to hearsay and there is nothing about opinion so I don't know where they got that one, but how can anyone mix up opinion and hearsay unless they mean "opinion of what they heard"

 

[05er]

Gosh, after that Crime section you can't help but naysay LS can you, Mel?

Whilst prelim tends to oversimplify everything, the HSC texts are legit because markers won't tolerate simplistic understandings.

 

[melsc]

its not that, in my experiences with mock trial where we had actual precedents and actual cases it didnt help at all really, what i'm saying is LS is VERY basic and case law and uni stuff would be much more complex and require a more complex understadning of the concepts

 

[05er]

NO! You cannot hide behind a tangle of roughly justified terms. You used to <3 LS...now you hate it...tsk tsk tsk: think of the children.

 

[melsc]

I do love legal but there wasnt enough law in it for me *omg I sound like a sad case*

 

[santaslayer]

I do love legal but there wasnt enough law in it for me *omg I sound like a sad case*

The hiennman book deals a lot with what happened (the facts) and a brief explanation as to why the court came up with the decision. It was more of a "yes this is right and that is wrong" thing. No vaugeness, no room for creativity, no need to think too much, just a yes or no answer.


Which is a good thing. Especially during the examination periods.

 

[05er]

The hiennman book deals a lot with what happened (the facts) and a brief explanation as to why the court came up with the decision. It was more of a "yes this is right and that is wrong" thing. No vaugeness, no room for creativity, no need to think too much, just a yes or no answer.


Which is a good thing. Especially during the examination periods.

Just like USyd law I've been led to believe...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I hate that book ...

You're not the only one!

I would imagine though, that they use a more concise (ie. less annoying waffle) Crim textbook at USyd?

 

[MiuMiu]

*is taught by David Farrier and Luke McNamara*

I hated that text too though!

 

[erawamai]

I loved Brown et al

It doesn't have neat headings but its a massive source of information. The alternative to Brown are those boring books that just outline the principles. I think Crim law is the one law subject that requires context.